With the additions of COTC on the Network, I am enjoying the first few Clashes and can't help but notice the differences in style of how they present the product in general compared to today. Ross and Caudle are just serious professionals as they comment and do pbp on the matches. They will both talk about both competitors and tag teams in a sense that it is an actual battle for something worth attaining for. They will point out the fan favorite and the heel but do it in such a simple way that it adds more to the show, I think. Things like 'You cant really trust Paul E Dangerously on the sidelines, Jim' are just subtle, to the point comments that make you aware but don't kill you to death, like Michael Cole saying Tamina is Snukas daughter every damn match three times in two minutes. Comparing to today where you have three goofy commentators all rambling about nothing really and being just really ignorant of what is going on, its amazing how much just the commentary alone has changed. Just an observation and I can't help but wonder if commentary today is hampering the product greatly to the fans. The constant message they give like John Cena Can't Lose (why does John Cena and Parker Lewis look the same anyway?) It doesn't help the fan stick with the product today. I liken it to NFL commentary from the likes of Joe Buck. I can't stand the guy and will actually watch a game with a radio broadcast with a muted TV. I know there are more problems than commentary issues in WWE, but I feel its a huge change from just 20 some years ago. I know that it was also a different kayfabe world back then but still, I think today the product delivery needs improvement.
Just some thoughts to toss out there for the blog. Keep up the great work.
Hello Scott,
Yeah, the thing is that today's commentary teams are out there to "tell stories" and to do things for Vince's personal amusement 90% of the time. The match in the ring is actually considered to be one of the least important things, which is why they're taught to watch the monitor on their desk and not the ring in front of them. It's just a different business now, where the matches are there to set up the stories instead of the opposite like in the old days. Plus someone like Michael Cole has spent his entire career in the WWE and doesn't bring anything from outside of the promotion to the job, which means you're lacking in the diversity of style and perspective that you used to get. It is what it is, basically.
Yeah, I don't like it, but it's the way things are. To say the least, professional wrestling has changed dramatically in the last twenty years, and that's a major one.
ReplyDeleteI thought announcers were told to watch the monitor because you're calling the shots that people are watching on TV, not something that might not be picked up (I swear I heard a baseball announcer explain something like that).
ReplyDeleteThe worst part is that it's arguable that the WORST thing about the current product is the commentary. It just drags everything down. A perfect example is last night's Adam Rose segment. JBL spends the whole segment talking about how much he hates bunnies, which for some reason has Lawler babbling about Paul Heyman being a walrus (a joke that is six months old), and Cole shilling how cool Adam Rose is. Even the "story" they're telling isn't consistent among the 3 commentators!
ReplyDeletePutting that commentary on for 3 hours straight and is death.
I don't think there's any argument for something being worse than the commentary, actually. Cole, Lawler and JBL are hands down the worst part of Raw, without question.
ReplyDeleteLawler needs to be replaced, and I think that may improve things. Letting Cole off the Vince leash may also help, but he's basically everyone's embarrassing dad at this point.
That's actually a really good explanation.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, when one guy sneaks up behind another, you don't want the announcer blowing the surprise before we actually see it.
So until Vince is dead, the commentary is going to suck ass.....
ReplyDeleteYeah because that serious pro wrestling stuff the NWA was doing at that time really took the business by storm!!! Lawler was doing stupid commentary in 98. Commentary is an issue but the old NWA style was never catching.........This business..........on fire.
ReplyDeleteTry reading the email next time, Stevie.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one that doesn't even UNDERSTAND the whole "telling stories" thing? Like, what story are they actually telling (or attempting to tell) by ignoring the match and babbling about what the other announcers had for lunch that day?
ReplyDeleteI can understand if they were selling the emotion of the match, saying "look at how badly they want to hurt each other" is more dramatic than "three punches followed by a suplex" (and not redundant, since we can see which moves are being done), but twerking doesn't constitute a "story", and yammering on about twerking doesn't constitute "telling a story".
I liked the serious NWA style commentary but I could see how that isn't everyone's cup of tea. But even the 80's style over the top WWF commentary used what was happening in the ring as the basis of the commentary.
ReplyDeleteLawler DID do stupid commentary fifteen years ago, but he had JR to balance him out.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with them calling the action from the monitor for that very reason, although it does look weird when the cameras are directly on the announcers. I just wish they would call the moves, treat what was happening in the ring as a contest, and stop saying stupid catchphrases like "building momentum" every five seconds.
ReplyDeleteBrief aside: I was cycling through recommendations on Netflix earlier today, and on my recommendations list it had 'Unhung Hero', the documentary about the dude who was accused of having a small penis. Curious as to why Netflix would be pricking my subconscious in such a way, I looked down below the description, and lo and behold, what do I see?
ReplyDelete"Recommended Because You Watched: 'Triple H: The King of Kings'"
You can't buy comedy like that.
Joey Styles went into it a bit on Austin's podcast. It is basically a horseshit buzz phrase that they use that's supposed to mean one thing but is actually something else. What it supposedly is is describing the action in a more dramatic way. What it actually means is to not glorify workers we don't want to push by pointing out their in-ring talent.
ReplyDeleteLawler has never been very good IMO. He had good chemistry with JR though. That makes up for a lot. Much like how Gorilla wasn't particularly good but was incredible with Heenan.
ReplyDeleteyou misspelled "company"
ReplyDeleteThe flip was when Punk was on commentary in late 2010, and he (like Jesse or Bobby) made even the most standard match very entertaining. If he comes back, I hope he goes in the booth.
ReplyDeleteI think Cole would be world's better without Vince. Lawler just isn't adding anything without JR. And JBL...well, he's just horrible period.
ReplyDeleteThis is the main reason I haven't watched wrestling in over a decade, and why I stuck with WCW into the early nWo days before Schiavone stopped caring. Yes Russo, I know it's not real, but I would still like it to be treated as competition. Because what's the point of watching when winning very rarely means anything.
ReplyDelete